12 Rational Responses to Irrational Arguments About Guns

Which sport requires an assault weapon that fires 850 rounds per minute?

January 22, 2013 |

In a recent discussion about gun control on Thom Hartmann's program,
my opponent suggested that gun control advocates like me really have a
cultural aversion to guns. That's a standard ploy for the gun set: when
reason isn’t on your side, deploy emotional and personal arguments
instead.

"Anti-gun"? I could've brought up my own recreational gun use, or
even brought out the firing range pass I carry in my wallet. But I'll
admit that I've lost a little of my taste for it as our national killing
spree continues unabated. What's more, that would've been disrespectful
to the millions of Americans who do have an understandable aversion to
guns. Personal habits should have no part in a rational policy
discussion.

Now that President Obama has made his initial gun control proposals,
the crazy's being ratcheted up to a new level. Rational Americans in all
walks of life will be confronted with these kinds of arguments. We're
going to need a playbook. Here are 12 responses you can use when you're
confronted with some of the standard illogical, irrational and
emotionally overheated statements that gun extremists use.

1. I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro-kindergartner.

After Newtown, what person in his right mind thinks it's irrational
to propose some common-sense measures to prevent similar tragedies in
the future?

2. Saying "If we have gun control only outlaws will have
guns" is like saying "If you outlaw drunk driving, only outlaws will
drive drunk."

Rush Limbaugh's recent variation on the old "only outlaws will have
guns" line went like this: "If you have gun control laws, the
law-abiding will be the only people that don’t have guns."

This anti-gun control cliche makes absolutely no sense. We lose our
driver's license if we're arrested for drunk driving, or if we commit
too many other moving violations. But law-abiding people are free to
drive. Gun control laws aren't any different.

3. If dead children are a "distraction," what subjects are important enough to be worthy of your attention?

As Media Matters reports,
an increasing number of gun-extremist righties have suggested that
attempts to prevent more deaths, including the deaths of young people at
Newtown, Aurora, Columbine and elsewhere, are really just a
"distraction" from more important matters.

Try convincing the parents of dead kids that their personal tragedies
aren't important. And if dead kindergartners don’t deserve your
attention, what does?

6. If I can't drive without decent vision, I shouldn't be
able to purchase weapons of mass killing after beating my grandmother to
death with a hammer.

Maybe I’m off base here, but that just seems like common sense to me.

7. "Freedom to own a gun"? I have the freedom to own a car.
But I don't have the freedom to buy an M1A1 Abrams tank, or the many
kinds of rounds -- armor-piercing, incendiary, point detonation, delay,
airburst, and shotgun-like antipersonnel tungsten balls -- manufactured
for its 120mm smoothbore cannon.

And I'm okay with that.

If our laws had permitted that, I'm pretty sure we would’ve wised up
the third or fourth time somebody drove one up to a school, parked in
the school bus lane, and started lobbing cannon rounds into the gym,
music room, cafeteria, and classrooms -- while fending off law
enforcement with a rain of fire from its three auxiliary machine guns.

8. The only other country besides the United States that
considers unrestricted gun ownership a fundamental human right is Yemen …

From the UN's Small Arms Survey:
"Only two—the United States and Yemen—is ownership of firearms a
citizen's basic right. Figures published in the Small Arms Survey 2007
show that the USA and Yemen also have the highest rates of firearms per
civilian, with an estimated 90 guns per 100 people in the US, and 55 in
Yemen."

There's a slogan for you: "More extreme than Yemen."

9. Why is it that the people who think our "freedom to own
guns" is absolute and inflexible are always the first ones to attack our
other freedoms -- of speech, of assembly, of worship (a religion other
than their own), of privacy -- in the name of national security?

We have the data which shows that our supposed "gun freedom" is
causing thousands of needless deaths each year. Most "gun rights"
advocates don't care -- and are more than eager to sacrifice other
fundamental freedoms even when the evidence suggests it's unnecessary
and even wasteful.

10. You say guns make us safer, but we already have more guns per capita than any other nation on Earth.

We also have the highest gun homicide rate of any developed nation. Our rate is 32 times that of Great Britain's, for example.

Are we safe enough yet?

11. "Recreational gun use"?

Which sports, exactly, require an assault weapon that fires 850 rounds per minute?

And is there any mass-killing capacity that would be too much for
your recreational activity? 5,000 rounds per minute? 10,000 rounds per
minute? Or is the recreational value of high-speed gunfire infinite and
unbounded?

12. Statistics show that states with more guns also have more homicides. Have you considered starting your own state?

That would allow you, for the first time, to use the Second Amendment
for its true and stated purpose: to protect the security of a state.

All the other gun extremists could join you there. Wouldn't that be great?

Most of us are getting tired of reading the obituaries of public
servants, moviegoers, shoppers, schoolchildren, and other innocent
bystanders in our local papers. Now we can be safe, you can be happy --
and Wall Street investors can keep profiting from guns and the misery they cause.

The state of “Guntopia” isn’t a perfect idea. We would worry about your children’s safety -- but then, we already do.

Replies

all so very true, I used a couple of these on a rabid friend of a friend on facebook. My actual friend said I had the redneck steaming and frothing at the mouth, the jack-rabbit actually threatened me on facebook

(a)Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

g)As used in this section:

(1)The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

(2)The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 21/2 inches in length.

(3)The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United State

Most states have laws that mirror this for state and local buildings.

Quoting tnmomofive:

Fearfull people get desperate I guess.So much so that you'd all stomp on our Counstitution like this counsilman in this video http://youtu.be/kKpLhNiC8zg ...he should lose his job.

Strike out again. It says "Washington City". It does not say a Washington, DC court. So, it is common sense to assume this took place in a town or city in the state of Washington, ergo, it wasn't a federal court house.

Thousands of smaller towns don't even have court houses, per se, they call them village halls, where they also have their streets, water, parks depts, etc. These would be the buildings in which they hold their village or council meetings, not a court house. Or a really small town, might hold their council meetings in a local restaurant banquet room or VFW hall. It's all relative. Hell, I live in a town of 25,000 people, and most of the towns around me are in the 20,000's, and our only court house is in the county seat, where the county jail is and all trials are held. Our public council meetings are held in our village hall.

(a)Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

g)As used in this section:

(1)The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

(2)The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 21/2 inches in length.

(3)The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United State

Most states have laws that mirror this for state and local buildings.

Quoting tnmomofive:

Fearfull people get desperate I guess.So much so that you'd all stomp on our Counstitution like this counsilman in this video http://youtu.be/kKpLhNiC8zg ...he should lose his job.

Umm, a gun that fires 850 or more rounds a minute is an automatic weapon, basically the same thing as a machine gun. They have been so tightly controlled since 1934 that they are very expensive and very rare.

The majority of mass murders are committed by HANDGUNS, not "assault rifles." They are easier to conceal.

Criminals do NOT obey the laws, therefore gun laws don't stop them from obtaining guns. So yes, if you outlaw guns, the outlaws (criminals) will still have them. Why the hell is this so hard to comprehend.

The gun homicide rate has gone down every year for the past 5+ years. This is according to the FBI statistics.

Hmm, some of the cities with the strictest gun control have the highest gun homicides...Chicago and DC. How's that working out?

The US does not have "unrestricted gun ownership." That statement is just plain idiotic.

Umm, a gun that fires 850 or more rounds a minute is an automatic weapon, basically the same thing as a machine gun. They have been so tightly controlled since 1934 that they are very expensive and very rare.

The majority of mass murders are committed by HANDGUNS, not "assault rifles." They are easier to conceal.

Criminals do NOT obey the laws, therefore gun laws don't stop them from obtaining guns. So yes, if you outlaw guns, the outlaws (criminals) will still have them. Why the hell is this so hard to comprehend.

The gun homicide rate has gone down every year for the past 5+ years. This is according to the FBI statistics.

Hmm, some of the cities with the strictest gun control have the highest gun homicides...Chicago and DC. How's that working out?

The US does not have "unrestricted gun ownership." That statement is just plain idiotic.